Bench:C.Hari Shankar
176 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
176 cases indexed | Page 3 of 6
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v.Amul Electromech Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued interim orders in favor of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited (Amul) against several defendants regarding trademark infringement. The court directed specific defendants to immediately suspend access to infringing domain names (like www.amulfans.com), block social media accounts, and remove product listings on e-commerce platforms like Amazon. For other intermediaries, the court mandated a 'notice and takedown' mechanism, requiring them to promptly remove any content bearing Amul's trademarks upon receiving notification from the plaintiff.
Khilender Gupta Trading As M/S Bobby Enterprises v.Rakesh Kumar Trading As M/S Sai Birbal Das Foods
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Khilender Gupta (the defendant in the original suit) challenging a lower court's refusal to permit amendments to their written statement. The core issue was whether changing the claimed date of trademark use constituted an impermissible 'U-turn.' The Court ruled that since the petitioner was entitled to claim user from any date, and the amendment merely reflected newly discovered material, it was correctional in nature and should be allowed in the interest of justice.
Under Armour Inc. v.Ashwani & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark litigation, the Delhi High Court issued procedural orders to advance the case. The court directed that notice be served on all parties and set a returnable date for July 2023. Crucially, the court allowed an application seeking access to the official records of Trademark Registration No. 5372621 in Class 25, ensuring these documents would be placed before the court for consideration.
Bpi Sports Llc v.Saurabh Gulati & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark opposition case involving Bpi Sports Llc and Saurabh Gulati. Despite initial claims of non-service, the court found that Respondent No.1 had been served through multiple modes (speed post, email, mobile), leading to him being proceeded against ex parte. Crucially, the court mandated that a status quo be maintained regarding Trademark Registration No. 4422891 for the mark 'BPI SPORTS', preventing any assignment or license during the pendency of the matter.
Ms Lightbook & Anr. v.Mr Pravin Shriram Kadam & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for interim injunctive relief, despite arguments regarding priority of registration and deceptive similarity. The court found that the plaintiffs were disentitled to immediate relief due to their failure to disclose a material fact—a previous admission made by them in response to a Section 57 rectification application filed by the defendants. This omission was deemed a clear case of misrepresentation and concealment, preventing the court from granting an injunction at this preliminary stage.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Parulben Navnath Chothani Trading As Shiv Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court recorded a settlement between the Plaintiff, Sirona Hygiene Private Limited, and Defendant No. 1 in a trademark infringement suit concerning its 'SIRONA' brand. The settlement acknowledged Sirona's rights in both its registered mark and product packaging copyright. As part of the agreement, the infringing party agreed to cease using similar marks like 'SIROMA' and paid Rs. 65,000/-. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1, who was then deleted from the array of parties.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Verizon Trade Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order on April 12, 2023, in the matter of Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. versus Verizon Trade Services & Ors. The court directed that the case be re-notified for a hearing on April 13, 2023. This procedural step indicates ongoing litigation concerning trademark matters between the two related entities.
Vinit Dua v.Prashant Mani Tripathi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Vinit Dua, to register his trademark infringement claim against Prashant Mani Tripathi & Ors. The court found that a prima facie case of infringement was made out because the defendant's mark, 'AFFINITY ELEVE,' is highly likely to deceive customers into associating it with the plaintiff's registered mark, 'AF FINITY.' Consequently, the Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the confusingly similar mark while the suit proceeds.
Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan And Anr. v.Bollywood Time & Ors.
Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan filed a civil suit alleging that various parties were circulating misleading videos on YouTube claiming she was critically ill or deceased, often using morphed pictures. The plaintiffs argued this violated her right to privacy and infringed upon the family's intellectual property rights, specifically copyright in their images. The court examined the role of social media intermediaries like Google LLC (YouTube) under the IT Rules, 2021, while setting procedural timelines for the parties to proceed with the infringement claim.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Verizon Trade Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order on April 12, 2023, in the matter of Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. versus Verizon Trade Services & Ors. The court directed that the case be re-notified for a hearing on April 13, 2023. This procedural step indicates ongoing litigation concerning trademark matters between the two related entities.
Ttk Prestige Ltd v.Kcm Appliances Private Limited
Ttk Prestige Ltd filed a suit alleging piracy of its registered design for a pressure cooker. The core dispute centered on whether the unique, anti-spillage lid design was protectable and if Kcm Appliances Private Limited had copied this feature. The court found that the challenge to the registration's validity lacked substance and concluded that the defendant's product prima facie infringed the plaintiff's registered design.
Vaibhav Chaurasia v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Vaibhav Chaurasia seeking directions against the Union of India regarding the status of Trade Mark No. 2650542. The petitioner had applied for the substitution of his name as the proprietor following an assignment from M/s Delicious Food Products Pvt Ltd. Recognizing the limited nature of the grievance, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process and decide the application within a period of six weeks.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Verizon Trade Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order on April 12, 2023, in the matter of Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. versus Verizon Trade Services & Ors. The court directed that the case be re-notified for a hearing on April 13, 2023. This procedural step indicates ongoing litigation concerning trademark matters between the two related entities.
Beiersdorf Ag v.Rsh Global Private Limited & Anr.
This order addressed an application by Beiersdorf Ag alleging that Rsh Global Private Limited was disobeying previous court injunctions regarding the use of deceptively similar cosmetic packaging. The plaintiff pointed out that the defendant's product remained available on various e-commerce websites despite the existing restraint orders. The defendants countered, stating they were actively contacting these third-party sites to have the products removed. Given the complexity of enforcement across multiple online platforms, the court granted a short adjournment to allow further submissions on this critical issue.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Indoco Remedies Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Indoco Remedies Limited regarding the validity and infringement of patent IN 247381 for Apixaban was amicably resolved through mediation. The defendant acknowledged the patent's validity until its expiry date (September 17, 2022) and confirmed discontinuing all related activities.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Metrochem Api Private Limited regarding patent infringement of Apixaban was amicably resolved through court-mediated conciliation. The parties executed a Settlement Agreement, leading to the suit being decreed in terms of that agreement.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim injunctive relief regarding trademark infringement in the pharmaceutical sector. The court found prima facie substance in Glaxo Group Limited's claim against Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning the marks BETNOMAID and MEDNOVATE, ruling that these were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks (BETNESOL/BETNOVATE). Consequently, an injunction was granted restraining the defendant from using these specific marks pending the final suit. However, the court declined to grant an injunction against the mark BETASON.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Verizon Trade Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order on April 12, 2023, in the matter of Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. versus Verizon Trade Services & Ors. The court directed that the case be re-notified for a hearing on April 13, 2023. This procedural step indicates ongoing litigation concerning trademark matters between the two related entities.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Rishabh Bansal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a complex IP dispute involving trademark infringement, copyright violation, and rectification petitions between Ashok Kumar Gupta and Rishabh Bansal. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement mediated by the court. Under the terms, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiffs' proprietary rights in the 'SAKARNI' brand (trademark) and its packaging features (copyright). The defendant committed to withdrawing an infringing mark, ceasing all use of similar marks/designs, and paying substantial damages.
Rspl Health Private Limited v.Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Ltd.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an infringement suit filed by Rspl Health Private Limited against Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's use of 'XPERT' in its registered word mark, 'HARPIC DRAIN XPERT,' infringed upon the plaintiff's device mark registration. While the court acknowledged the merits of the dispute, it primarily issued procedural directions, allowing the suit to proceed and setting timelines for filing written statements and interim replies.
Mirza Ahmed Baig Alias Asad v.Mirza Afser Baig & Anr.
The Delhi High Court heard petitions challenging the registration of several marks held by the respondent, focusing on issues of user claim and proprietorship. The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of continuous use and ownership, particularly regarding the mark 'MIDLAND'. The court noted these submissions but reserved judgment, scheduling a further hearing to allow the respondents to respond to the detailed challenges raised by the petitioner.
Ischemix Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Ischemix Llc appealed the Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 4380/DELNP/2013) concerning pharmaceutical products for treating ischemia. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on prior art D-5/D-6 and Section 3(d), was flawed because these documents were not cited during the initial hearing. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for de novo consideration.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co Kg v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma challenged the rejection of its application seeking to quash a pre-grant opposition filed against its patent application. The petitioner argued that the opposition lacked reasonable justification, while the court addressed the issue of abuse of process under Section 25(1).
Bolt Technology Ou v.Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court found the defendants guilty of contumacious and willful disobedience regarding a previous court order dated November 23, 2022. The original order had clearly prohibited the defendants from using their standalone mark 'BOLT' and an earlier logo, allowing only for future expansion under a modified mark ('BOLT.EARTH'). Despite this categorical direction, the defendants continued to use the proscribed marks. Consequently, the court held them in contempt and scheduled a hearing to determine the appropriate sentence.
Dolby International Ab v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dolby International Ab appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 6570/DELNP/2009) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was arbitrary, incomprehensible, and lacked any proper reasoning or due application of mind. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design, 'PEE BUDDY', by Defendant 7, which was manufacturing an identical device under the name 'NAMYAA'. The core dispute centered on whether the defendant's product constituted piracy of the plaintiff's certified design. While the court found the designs to be identical, subsequent proceedings led to a settlement with one key defendant (Defendant 2), resulting in a decree sheet being drawn up for that party.
Immersion Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Immersion Corporation, filed a commercial suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon a patent held by the plaintiff through their manufacture and sale of mobile handsets. The court allowed procedural applications regarding document submission and exempted the case from mandatory pre-institution mediation.
Ms Bharat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks Also Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed objections raised in a rectification petition concerning the trademark 'LUBI'. The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the registration occurred in Ahmedabad and not New Delhi. Furthermore, they contended that the petitioner's filing was barred by Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to a prior pending suit in the District Court at Ahmedabad. Given these complex jurisdictional and procedural hurdles, the court decided to renotify the matter for further consideration.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Buildtech Llp & Anr.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Vistara Buildtech LLP and others in the Delhi High Court. The court found a clear prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given that Tata Sia is the proprietor of the well-known mark 'VISTARA' used in commercial aviation. The order restrained the defendants from using the infringing mark while the main suit proceeds.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Br Agrotech Limited And Anr
The dispute involved Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd asserting its exclusive patent rights over a specific suspo-emulsion formulation. The parties reached a settlement regarding Defendant No. 1 (BR Agrotech), acknowledging the Plaintiff's patent validity and granting a permanent injunction against infringement.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.